Change The Order

Are you a former cricketer? Then you might qualify!

2005-05-18T15:59:00.000-04:00

Mohinder Amarnath. Ajit Wadekar. Madan Lal. Ashok Malhotra. Balwinder Singh Sandhu. What do these players have in common?

If you said they all once played cricket for India, you’d be correct. But that’s stating the obvious.

If you said they’d all like to be coach of the Indian national cricket team, bravo! You just won the grand prize!

That’s right, cricket fans. Former cricketers from across the nation are popping up to announce their desire for the Mother of All Coaching Assignments.

And here are their credentials:

Ashok Malhotra:
"I have coached the Indian 'A' team. I have also been coaching at the National Cricket Academy, but nobody from the BCCI seems to have noticed.”
"Nobody approached me, nobody approached Madan Lal. Both of us are doing coaching at some level in India, but the BCCI doesn't seem to care."
"Everybody says John Wright did a good job, but what exactly did he do? He could not rectify Sourav Ganguly's short-pitched delivery problem for five years."

Oh, sure. That’s definitely a sign of failure. 5 years as coach, and—get out the brick bats—he couldn’t even rectify Ganguly’s short-pitched delivery problem!

Two ICC Championship Cup finals, a World Cup final, a 4-4 record against arguably the greatest team in history (including an historic 2-1 home series win and a 1-1 tied series Down Under), a NatWest Trophy win—all these count for squat, because—heaven’s to Betsy—Wright couldn’t rectify Ganguly’s short-pitched delivery problem!

Ashok, you’re clearly the guy for the job!

Ajit Wadekar:
"Are they appointing a clerk?"

This is what Wadekar said about the candidates being asked to submit their CVs and come in for interviews.

He’s right. After all, I can get a job as President, CEO, or heck, even a middle level manager in any company without a CV and interview. Just look at my past accomplishments!

Oh wait a minute... That’s what a CV is supposed to communicate!

And calling me in for an interview is a waste of time, of course. Simply by knowing my name—Greg Chappell, Ajit Wadekar, Kapil Dev, Michael Jordan, Jim Carrey—you’d immediately be able to intuitively figure out my plans and vision for the team and Indian cricket in general. This is so obvious that it deserves a smack of the head.

Uh... Ajit... Maybe you’re not being considered, because (a) you don’t have the support of the current players, and (b) you coached India before, and while you made us tigers at home, you made us lambs outside—not exactly the stuff that’s going to take India to the number one spot.

Balwinder Singh Sandhu:
"I feel I should also be one of the contenders for the national job. If not as a regular coach, at least as a bowling coach.”
From Rediff.com: “Sandhu said he has the experience and qualifications and wants the BCCI to consider his candidature.”

Has he been in touch with international cricket? Is he the guy who will help India win the 2007 World Cup? Or help it to become the #1 Test team?

Bowling coach, eh? Hmm... Worth a thought. But if he’s been coaching at the National Cricket Academy, how come we’re not producing fast bowlers who can perform on a consistent basis?

Mohinder Amarnath:
He’s my favorite. Check out these quotes:
Amarnath was asked on NDTV Hindi about the trend of Asian teams appointing foreign coaches. His response: "Agar aap samajhte hain ke kisi ka rang gora hai aur chamdi alag kism kee hai to vo behtar hai, to mai bhee Fair and lovely lagana shuru kar deta hu ke mera rang bhee waisa ho jaaye." ("if you think that just because someone's color is white and his skin is different that makes him better then even I will begin using Fair and Lovely so I can make my color like that.")
His views on the use of technology: "I don¹t have laptop. I only have a lap."

Are you a former Indian cricketer? Feel free to throw your hat into the ring! You might just be what Indian cricket needs!

My vote: Make Amarnath coach. I doubt we can do much worse on the field, but at least we’ll have plenty of laughs!

An opportunity not to be wasted

2005-05-16T09:37:00.000-04:00

Well, the circus that is the search for India's next coach has well and truly begin. As I've argued here, these few months of layoff from the regular grind of contemporary cricket provides the BCCI and the team a rare chance to reflext, re-group, strategize and prepare for the coming season. These are critical months, and some big decisions need to made—decision that may very well shape the future of Indian cricket for the coming years.

Will the Board take advantage of this opportunity?

In my heart, I know the answer... Not likely.

Sigh...

Sorry, but it really is time to move on

2005-05-05T09:53:00.000-04:00

So now Wasim Akram and Arjuna Ranatunga have backed our embattled captain. "Sourav has been a great servant of Indian cricket and his contributions to the Indian cricket team in the last five years cannot be denied," Akram explained. "We have to realise that all the top batsmen pass through a period where the ball does not make any contact with the bat. It has happened to the best before and it will happen to the best in days to come. You see it is inevitable."

Ranatunga agreed. ''He is too good a player to be axed. He is a very positive captain. I feel that he is one of India's best captains I have played against.'' He goes on. "He is just having a bad run, a bad patch which most of the top cricketers have gone through... This is the time for the team, the board and the entire country, including the media, to support and back him. Give him some time to recover. I tell you he is a top cricketer and needs just one good innings."

This sort of reasoning for not dropping an established player is not new. And it is one of the reasons why subcontinental teams have been held back (they've held themselves back) from being a consistently top team. Even in the 1980s and 1990s, senior players were rarely dropped unless they had a fall out with the selectors or the Board. (Just ask Mohinder Amaernath.) Kapil Dev is probably the most glaring example, continuing way past his prime.

But as I've argued here, Ganguly does not have the form, the statistics, the performance, the results or the confidence to continue as the Indian captain. For India to progress to the next level, sad as it may seem, cruel as it may seem, India must look past Ganguly.

Men of substance

2005-05-05T09:50:00.000-04:00

In his < href="http://iecolumnists.expressindia.com/full_column.php?content_id=69318" target="_blank">April 29th column, Harsha Bhogle weighs in with his thoughts on how the selectors themselves should be... er... selected. A typically insightful column from Mr. Bhogle.

India can turn things around

2005-04-27T11:31:00.000-04:00

Once again, India has the benefit of a break. No cricket until August. This gives the team and the Board plenty of time to take corrective action and plan for the upcoming season.

India clearly wasn’t as hungry as Pakistan. India lost the battle as much in the mind as on the field. This has been a recurring theme in Indian cricket. It’s time the Board appointed a full-time sports psychologist (or at least kept one on retainer). Building this “mental toughness” must be high on the agenda of the new coach.

Also high on his agenda should be getting the players to focus on the “little things,” like taking singles to rotate the strike, bowling a disciplined line and length, cutting down on extras, catching, and running between wickets. At times we show we can do these things, but what’s lacking is the consistency.

To help the team, the Board needs to do two things immediately:

Finalize the schedule for the upcoming season
Overhaul the selection process.

By finalizing the schedule early, the team can properly plan and prepare, devise strategies, and train physically and mentally. And it’s vital that the captain, vice-captain and coach are involved in the scheduling process. Scheduling should be done in a way to give maximum opportunity for our players to perform at their best.

The current 5-member selection panel should be disbanded. Instead, the Board should appoint a new 5-member committee comprised of 3 full-time members, the captain and the coach. And the captain and coach should be given full voting rights. The other three members should be appointed for multi-year terms, like 3, 4 or 5 years. This will allow for long-term planning, and continuity and consistency in the selection process. The performance of the three members should be evaluated every 6 months or so to ensure accountability.

Finally, the Board should make sure that decent, competitive pitches are prepared. What is the use of having dead tracks that offer no assistance to the bowlers, and allow scores of 300+ in every game (for ODIs)? Or pitches that are under prepared, where the ball doesn’t bounce? These pitches are also graveyards for pace bowlers, and make average spinners look better than they really are. Most importantly, the captain and the coach should be involved in the pitch and ground preparations.

Of course, all this is predicated on the Board expeditiously choosing a new coach. It will take time for the new coach to build a rapport with the players, and get into groove. My fear is that a new coach may not be appointed until well into the summer, and none of the above changes will take place. And that’s a pity, because it means we’ll probably see more of the mediocrity that we saw this past season.

Nationality doesn't matter

2005-04-20T13:03:00.000-04:00

Frankly, this is getting ridiculous.

Once again, we have a former cricketer claiming India doesn't need a foreign coach.

Rediff.com reports Ajit Wadekar as saying, "I don't understand why they are looking for a foreign coach when someone like Sandeep Patil is aspiring to be India's coach."

His reasons?

"Sandeep has played almost at the same level, if not better, than [Bangladesh coach] Dav Whatmore or [former Australia captain] Greg Chappell."

"..it makes no sense having a foreign coach when you have former players like Patil, Kapil Dev or Sunil Gavaskar, who were great players in their time."

Rediff reports, "He said Patil deserves the job considering his exploits with Kenya, whom he took to the World Cup semi-finals in 2003."

"He [Patil] has also performed when assigned with the India 'A' or the Under-19 teams. I can't understand why he is not being considered."

(What's this obsession with Patil?)

So according to Wadekar, the criteria for being a coach is to be a former great player. A great player would make a great coach, right?

Rubbish.

Whatmore, Duncan Fletcher, John Wright, Bob Woolmer, and even John Buchanan were never great players in their time, but all have been successful coaches.

If being a great player is the critera for being a good coach, then what about the records of Bedi, Gaekward, Kapil Dev, and even Wadekar himself? None could ever help India win a Test series abroad. Wright did that. None could instill a more professional, disciplined work ethic to the Indian team. Wright did. None could take India to the World Cup final. Wright did.

And here's my favorite reason from Wadekar:

"We have different cultures, which a foreign coach will find difficult to understand. We have different players coming from all over the country, speaking different types of languages, different religion; so it is very difficult. Only a past Indian cricketer can understand these things."Really? So what exactly was Wright doing for four and a half years? Talking to the boys in sign language?

It's unfathomable and preposterous that these former "greats" continue to hold on to the belief that only an Indian coach is best for the Indian team. Have they learnt nothing in the past four and half years?

This is not to say that a foreign coach is the One Correct Answer. The next coach could be Indian or foreign. That's not necessarily as important. What is important is that India needs to select a coach who can help them progress beyond what it's already achieved. While performance with the India A and Kenya are admirable, does Patil have what it takes to get India to the next level?

Bob Woolmer has analyzed the Indian team in his column on Rediff.com. As I wrote in this article, Woolmer believes India has regressed since the 2003 World Cup. He points out many reasons for India's failure in the series against Pakistan, and says it wasn't lack of ability, but more "strategic areas that India were unable to put together."

When you get to the level of international cricket, very little separates one team from another in terms of skills and talent. What makes the difference is mental preparation prior to the game, mental performance during the game, and strategic thinking. This is where India failed, and where it has continued to fail since defeating Pakistan in its own backyard last year.

The Board needs to appoint that person as coach who can help India with these things. Nationality doesn't matter. Being able to mold and shape the team to take it to the next level is what matters most. Otherwise, we should all get used to underachievement.

It's time to move on

2005-04-19T10:54:00.000-04:00

Here's my latest article. It's about... you guess it, Ganguly.

One of the biggest problems afflicting Indian cricket is this obsession with past records and statistics. Here's a familiar refrain: "He's scored <insert number of runs scored or wickets taken here>. How can he be dropped? He's got class, so he'll come through this bad patch." And so players clearly out of form continue to be carried along at great cost to the team. Forget long-term thinking—it's not good for the short-term either!

In the mean time, Australia has had the courage to drop the following "class" players:
Darren Lehmann
Michael Slater
Andrew Bichel
Michael Bevan
Dean Jones
David Boon
Mark Taylor
Allen Border
Mark Waugh
Steve Waugh

Okay, so maybe some of them weren't actually dropped. But they were definitely showed the door and encouraged to go through it. If they didn't, the certainly got a nudge.

Last time I checked, Australia is still the champion.

One of the hallmarks of a great team is it's contiuous search for excellence; to want to reach the next level; to raise the bar further. In recent times, no team demonstrates this more effectively (and ruthlessly) than Australia.

In contrast, Indian cricket has often been held back due to an unhealthy attachment to records and individual achievements. Many Indian cricketers have been allowed to continue their careers well past their "Sell By" date, causing the team to suffer. Kapil Dev is probably the most glaring example of this.

Holding on to players who may have undoubtedly been great servants to Indian cricket, but whose glory days are well behind them forces us to look backwards. If Indian cricket is to advance, it needs to make some tough choices. It needs to continuously look forward. And if a particular player is currently not performing—no matter how many runs he may have scored or wickets he may have taken in the past—he needs to be let go. We need to move past him.

It is for this reason that we must move on past Sourav Ganguly. Yes, he was once a class player. Yes, he has brought great glory to Indian cricket. And yes, for that we should thank him profusely, fet him, honor him... And then bid him a respectful and dignified farewell.

We need to move on.

Read my article here, or here.

www.BCCI.tv

2005-04-15T14:12:00.000-04:00

Uh oh! Watch out! The BCCI is considering launching its own 24-hour TV network to broadcast cricket matches.

Why?

Oh, some 3.65 billion reasons.

That's right. $3.65 billion is the figure the BCCI is throwing around as the potential revenue it could generate in 5 years from this endeavor.

Now, there is some precendent for this. The NFL in the US has its own network. I believe the NBA does too.

But here's where there could be a difference: Quality.

Exactly how good will the quality of coverage be? (One might be tempted to think it can't get worse than Doordarshan, but then the BCCI has shown itself quite adept at lowering the barrier in just about anything it does.)

This will mean no one will be able to bid on the telecast rights for domestic cricket matches anymore. With no competition, there will be no incentive for the BCCI to provide quality coverage.

The only silver lining is that the BCCI TV network will have to bid along with ESPN-Star, ZTV, and anyone else for the broadcast rights to cricket matches being played by India abroad. This may give them some incentive to provide good coverage.

Or will it? Then again, the BCCI can always simply decide not to bid on matches being played abroad, since it has a lock on broadcasting mathces played in India.

Is this some sort of anti-trust violation?

Even the NFL, NBA, etc. all give the rights for coverage of games in their respective sports to major TV and cable networks, like ABC, CBS, Fox, ESPN, etc.

Well, let's hope and pray that if the BCCI does go ahead with this, it will indeed use the money to "create the much needed infrastructure" and invest in the sport, as opposed to filling the coffers of the individual Boards members and their chelas.

Baseball pays cricket a compliment

2005-04-14T10:24:00.000-04:00

Last week, Adam Gilchrist was approached by... Get ready for this... the Boston Red Sox, last year's World Series champion.

Yes, Gilchrist has been approached by a baseball team! (Insert comment here about the "Old Boys" from the MCC turning over in their graves.)

Apparently, Gilchrist's amazing hand-eye coordination caught the eye (yes, pun intended) of Australia's Olympic baseball coach, Jon Deeble. Deeble is also the first base coach and recruiting agent for the Red Sox. He told the Red Sox about Gilchrist's amazing ability, and they approached Gilchrist about assessing his prowess against pitching (as opposed to bowling, which he's already conquered).

Check out the story here.

Are cricket skills transferrable to baseball? Can a batsman become a batter? Can a bowler become a pitcher? What about the other way around? Of course, anything is possible.

Batting in baseball certainly requires a tremendous amount of hand-eye coordination, timing and reflexes. The balls are thrown at you at speeds of 90-100mph, and unlike in cricket, they do not bounce. Plus, because of the round bat, it a certain amount of skill is undoubtedly required to hit the ball in a specific direction.

In contrast, in cricket the ball can be more easily directed because of the flattish nature of the bat. But in cricket that batsman must take into account multiple factors when judging a particular delivery precisely because the bowler can bounce the ball. Is the bowler a spinner , medium pacer or fast bowler? What's the condition of the pitch? What are the climatic conditions—overcast? Sunny? Windy? Humid?

All these factors combine to affect the delivery the batsmen is facing. It may spin, seam or swing in the air. Or do a little bit of all these things. It could be a full-length delivery, or a bouncer, pitched outside the off stump, or on middle and leg.

The main point here is that batting in cricket also requires hand-eye coordination and a certain amount of reflexive action. But more significantly, it requires footwork and temperament. Even in a one-day match, a batsman can be batting for up to two hours. And while he's at the crease, the nature of the match may dictate a change in his approach. He may have started out more stedily, but as the innings progresses, he'll be required to up the tempo, take more risks, and be more innovative.

None of this is there in baseball. But having said that, it doesn't mean that just about any cricket batsman can play baseball. For one thing, to say that is an injustice to baseball pitchers. Anyone who's tried to hit a pitcher knows how difficult this can be. And unlike in cricket, you don't have too many chances to miss-hit the ball. Every delivery must count.

What this means is that baseball has paid a huge compliment to Gilchrist (and to some extent, cricket).

In contrast to batting, pitching and bowling are poles apart. Yes, both crafts involve delivering the ball at high speeds, can have slower balls, and can even swing it in the air. But ask any bowler to pitch, and pretty soon he'll throw his arm out or worse, dislocate his shoulder. Ask a pitcher to bowl, suddenly he'll discover that finding the right line and length is easier said than done, and he may soon tire himself out from having to constantly run into the crease to deliver the ball.

Again, this is not to say a baseball player could never play cricket or vise versa. But it's important to recognize the differences between the mechanics and technicalities of the two sports. While you and I may be able to play both sports recreationally, it's a different game altogether to play them professionally. Professionals in both sports are very, very good. It takes a great deal of skill to pitch a baseball for an entire game, bowl 10-20 overs in a day, bat for one, two, maybe even four hours, and hit a home run against a professional pitcher. And it takes a great deal of skill to do this consistently.

This is why it is indeed a great compliment not just to Gilchrist, but to cricket at large.

The single reason for defeat

2005-04-13T13:13:00.000-04:00

Check out Ashish Magotra's informative article on Rediff.com. He makes the case that more than the form and performances of Sehwag, Tendulkar, Dravid and Ganguly, it's attention to the little things that won the first two matches for India and the lack of them that lost India the last two. Specifically, he discusses taking singles and the placement of a slip to protect the thirdman region.

The Wright Legacy

2005-04-13T10:22:00.000-04:00

I've published an article titled The Wright Legacy on E-Sports.com. Here's a summary of the article:

John Wright, a New Zealander, is resigning as National Coach of the Indian cricket team. He leaves a legacy that his native predecessors could not even dream about. His departure will be much mourned in a nation with a long tradition of xenophobia.

Read the full article here.

Indian Express sucks

2005-04-11T17:08:00.000-04:00

Yes, that's right. And I'm going to tell you why.

But before I do, I have a number of other topics I want to get to first.

First up: the 3rd ODI. Surprise, surprise: Pakistan won. In my last blog, I predicted that if Pakistan won the toss we'd see a total in excess of 300, and this would make things difficult for India, as its fielders would have been run ragged in the first innings. And what happened?

I also expressed concern (as did everyone else) about the great reliance on Sehwag and Dravid (and more recently Dhoni). A quick look at the stats of the other batsmen sends a chill up one's spine: Tendulkar 12 runs in 3 matches, Kaif 39, Yuvraj 32, Ganguly 13. What is going on here? I was worried what would happen if Sehwag, Dravid and Dhoni were out cheaply.

I got my answer. Collectively they made 58 and India crashed to an ignominious 106-run defeat.

To win the next ODI, India urgently needs to rectify its batting woes. I have no idea how this can be done at such short notice. There may be a crisis of confidence among the rest of the Indian batsmen, and if that is, all we can do is hope Sehwag and Dravid can somehow carry us through the series.

So this brings us to the second, third and fourth topics of the day: the 4th ODI, the toss and the pitches. They're all intertwined. Another boring, lifeless pitch, another run-fest (at least in the first innings), another match decided by the toss.

Seriously, what possible good can such flat, bare, comatose pitches serve the sport? Pre-match reports describe the pitch as grassless, bare and one "where the batsmen could safely plonk their front-foot and drive through the line, without fearing either seam movement or extra bounce." (CricInfo.)

So once again the pitch and the excessive heat will combine to make the toss the deciding factor in determining the result. How droll. How this serves the greater good of the sport is anyone's guess.

And my final thought of the day. What the Indian Express has done in its article about Wisden and Tendulkar is petty and repulsive. It is a blatantly deliberate attempt at boosting readership (and therefore sales), and it appalls me to no end. If you don't know what I'm talking about, read the article here.

Did you read it? Disturbing stuff, right? Well, it's a bunch of hogwash. But more importantly, it's manipulative and deceitful. Here's why.

Wisden Cricketer's Almanack is one of the most widely respected publications in the world of cricket. In it's 2005 issue, it reviews Tendulkar's performance in 2004. Go to CricInfo to read exactly what's been printed.

The Indian Express took certain words completely out of context and used them—no, manipulated them—to make this age-old and utterly senseless claim that Tendulkar is failing and has not won any matches for India. By claiming that Wisden has raised this issue, the Indian Express neatly absolves itself of any responsibility or accountability.

The Indian Express has created a controversy where none existed. And, as we all know, controversy sells. And no controversy sells more than one involving the one man who has served Indian cricket unflaggingly for the past 16 years and has done so much for this country, Sachin Tendulkar.

The best part is that that this issue of Wisden is not even out in print yet! So Wisden is really the only one who can adequately and accurately respond to what the Indian Express has done. (Thankfully, they did that. Kudos to them!) To the publishers and editors of the Indian Express I say: Very clever. But frankly—to use an American phrase that seems perfect for this occasion—you suck.

It's antics like this that jaundice people against the media. The job of journalism is to inform, to question, to stimulate intelligent debate. This is not what the Indian Express has done. If it truly feels what it proposes in its article, why can't it make the case on its own? Why use Wisden to boost its argument?

If the publishers and editors of the Indian Express have any self-respect and integrity left, they will fess up to what they've done and issue a public apology to its readers and most of all to Tendulkar.

Beware India!

2005-04-08T13:18:00.000-04:00

On to Jamshedpur for the 3rd ODI in this long, rather meaningless ODI series. (More on "meaningless" later.) We remember this place for the first match that was played here in 1983/84. Greenidge (115 off 134 balls) and Richards (149 off just 99 balls with 20 fours and 3 sixes) creamed the Indian bowlers all over the park to rack up an unbelievable 333 in just 45 overs. India didn't even try to win—it puttered around for 229 losing just 5 wickets.

High scoring will probably be the order of the day again tomorrow. Reports say the pitch doesn't have much in it, and what with the short boundaries, batsmen will have a great time as the bowlers will wilt in forecasted temperatures of 38 degrees centigrade.

Unfortunately, India's record at Jamshedpur is abysmal: it has won just one of the 7 ODIs played here.

Historically, the toss has had little significance here... Or has it? Interestingly, in the last 3 ODIs the team winning the toss has chosen to bat first, but teams have had more success chasing, winning 72% of the time. (Check out the results of all matches here.)

Perhaps this has something to do with India's terrible record—India has won the toss just twice, and when it hasn't, it's had to bat first on three of these occasions... and lost all three matches. In fact, in the last match, India actually won the toss, batted first, racked up 283/6, only to lost to the Windies by 4 wickets.

But it's more likely tomorrow that the team batting first will win for the reasons mentioned before. This means winning the toss will become important. The team that wins the toss should bat first, and make the opposition fielders chase leather under the hot sun.

This was probably a big deciding factor in India's wins in the first two ODIs. On flat pitches, under brutal conditions, the Pakistani bowlers and fielders understandably wilted. Undoubtedly, Sehwag, Dravid and Dhoni played extraordinarily well, but while they were out in the middle, their fellow batsmen were relaxing in the shade.

So what will happen if Pakistan wins the toss and bats first? The Indian bowlers will be facing a daunting challenge. Afridi is fully capable of doing what Sehwag does at the top of the order, and if he starts firing, the Indian fielders will find it all the more difficult to maintain the intensity.

Plus, there's the middle-order. While Pakistan batting line-up may have looked thread-bare at the start of the Test series, it looks quite good for the one-dayers. With Inzamam, Younis Khan and Youhana in the middle order, and Abdul Razzaq and Kamran Akmal capable of throwing their bats around very effectively toward the end of the innings, a total in excess of 300 is not beyond reason.

Everyone is giddy with the performances of Sehwag, Dravid and, most recently, Dhoni. But this does not guarantee victory. Dhoni played an excellent knock. But we cannot expect him to repeat it every time. So what if these three batsmen fail? In contrast to that of Pakistan, India's middle order looks weak and brittle. Tendulkar, Ganguly, Laxman, Kaif, Yuvraj—none of the them have been seriously among runs, and this is a cause for great worry, especially if India will be chasing a total around 300.

Pakistan has shown in this series that it's very capable of coming back, so the Indians should expect a hard-nosed battle tomorrow. Pakistan has been the hungrier side, and Inzamam will be hoping to win the toss tomorrow so he can start off immediately in the driver's seat.

Is Wisden Still Relevant?

2005-04-07T10:31:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, Wisden announced its Five Cricketers of the Year award, and they were all Englishmen. Now, that's not a problem in and of itself. What's interesting is that the criteria for selecting these players is their "influence on the previous English season". (It's also interesting that Wisden itself puts these words in quotes.)

Now, this is supposed to be the oldest award in cricket. And somewhere along the way while following this great sport I seem to have gotten the idea stuck in my head that Wisden is somehow the "bible" of cricket—the most respected authority. Turns out that I'm not the only one who has this impression. Check this out.

But is it really? If this "oldest award" is skewed toward crickers who have made an impact on the English season, can it really be considered the most respected authority on cricket?

In fact, now that the ICC has established its own ICC Awards, do these Wisden awards like Cricketers of the Year and Leading Cricketer of the Year have any significance?

Well, maybe to the English, who apparently still seem to view cricket in a cocoon.

Wisden merged with CricInfo. CricInfo has long been The Ultimate Destination for cricket news, scores, etc. (Some of us remember it from its formative years on gopher!) It wasn't biased toward any team or nationality. It was a common place for all cricket fans to satiate their appetite for all things cricket. So doesn't this mean Wisden should adapt its ways and become more all-inclusive?

Now, some may argue that it has. Certainly, it started Wisden Asia Cricket. This made sense—asia has more cricket fans (and teams) than any other continent. Asian cricket fans generate a large part of the revenues that the sport enjoys.

But is this enough? No. Cricket is not just an English game anymore. It is a multi-billion dollar commercialized international sport. So it makes sense for Wisden to change its ways. It needs to change the criteria for these awards so they—Wisden—stay relevant.

If not, then let Wisden fall into irrelevancy. There's always the ICC Awards.

League-based domestic cricket

2004-11-14T09:45:00.000-05:00

In his Indian View column, Amit Verma has argued for domestic cricket in India being structured in a league format, similar to how the sport of soccer is organized domestically around the world.

I support his views. Let's look at the American sport system: the NFL, NBA and MLB. All are leagues that are run on a franchise-based system--so each club is actually a franchise of the NBA, NFL or MLB. Every owner has one single goal: to make money. Inherently, this provides incentives to the owners to ensure that they have the right management in place, the right facilities, the right coaching staff, and, of course, the right players--everything to enhance their clubs' odds of winning the major prize--the NBA Championship, the Super Bowl, or the World Series. Why? Because everyone likes a winning team. An example is the Philadelphia Sixers. Interest in the team peaked a few years ago when they made the NBA Championships. Similarly with the Philadelphia Eagles in the NFL, which is now being considered a Super Bowl contender.

This results in an intense and healthy competition domestically in the sport. Because of the hype surrounding these championships (thanks to clever marketing--winning the Super Bowl or World Series somehow annoints you as "World Champions"!), public interest is large, and players become larger-than-life. A good performance in the championships or even the playoffs gives the player star status, and the media and the league do everything to ensure players are hyped. Of course, this leads to other revenue making opportunities--all the major sports leagues in the USA make a killing off selling memoribilia and merchandise.

A player like Michael Jordan did wonders for popularizing the NBA. Partly, this was due to Jordan's own magic. But also a lot had to do with the media and the NBA itself. Jordan had been singled out during his college playing days, and when he first signed up with the NBA there was a lot of hype. The NBA then milked Jordan's star power, featuring him in commercials, ads and merchandise, which, of course, increases his star power even more. The cycle goes on auto-pilot.

Another key tactic used by these leagues is ensuring their players are accessible to the media. This allows fans to get closer to their favorite players, and therefore, closer to the game.

Where do these clubs get their players from? Each has their own farm system. The NBA taps into colleges, foreign players and even the CBA at times. The NFL taps into college football leagues (which is also huge and competitive), the Canadian Football League, and is even setting up additional farm leagues, like the European Football League, World Football League and Arena Football. The MLB has fed off the minor leagues since ints inception.

And each is structured in a way to enhance the big prize: the Super Bowl is a clash between the Conference Champions, as is the NBA Championship. The World Series is the ultimate showdown between the League Champions (or Pennant Winners).

Having foreign players increases competition. During the Olympics, the level of competition was higher than it has been in the last 16 years. Part of that was due to the fact that NBA players from foreign countries went back to represent their home countries. Thus, the US basketball team faced stiffer competition. In addition, these foreign players bring their own competitiveness and style of play to the NBA, which forces American players to adapt, and thus, enhances the quality of the NBA overall.

This also results in better pay for players. We can debate the pros and cons of NBA, NFL or MLB players making huge salaries. But we cannot deny the fact that the money lures people both within and outside of the US to play in these leagues. An example is the West Indies, where fascination with the NBA is threatening the long-term viability of cricket.

The result is more interest and enthusiasm for the game, and more money for the sport. Of course, in the case of the US, interest in the domestic game is so high that people don't pay attention to international sports at all. (Hence, soccer is a good analogy from a domestic-international balance perspective.) And there are definitely problems with US sport--not everything about the system is great. However, the point is that the US sports leagues have created a self-perpetuating system that I believe cricket can learn from.

And the BCCI will still be able to rake in the big bucks.